This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Bahr Alarab river, a tributary from the White Nile, forms a natural as well as the
political boundary between the two states - Sudan (north) and South Sudan (south)
- of the river system. It also represents the natural boundary between the Nilotic
tribes of Dinka Malual and Nuer in the south and the Messeriya and Rezaighat Baggara
Arab pastoralists (cattle owners) north of the river. This naturally endowed river
system, which lies between latitudes 9° and 10° N and 22° and 32° E, provided the
basis for a symbiotic and peaceful co-existence between these diverse ethnic pastoral
groups for more than three decades. The pastoralists, through a well-articulated seasonal
migration cycle, managed to successfully share grazing, hunting and fishing areas,
in addition to trading and bartering consumer commodities inside what they called
‘peace markets’. All these pastoral practices were governed by customary laws enforced
by their tribal leaders, through joint tribal courts.

With the separation of the Sudan into two sovereign states - Sudan and South Sudan
- in June 2010, new political and security realities emerged, adversely impacting
the lives of these pastoral groups. Due to the continuous hostility between the two
neighbouring states, the traditional administration which used to monitor the common
border was changed into a semi-military structure on both sides.

To circumvent this drastic change of governance and to continue with their mutual
relationships, the two communities, the Malual Dinka on one side and Messeriya and
Rizaighat on the other, managed to conduct a series of tribal conferences during 2011,
culminating in the signing of a joint protocol, stipulating in detail how they should
share the natural resources over the river system, regardless of the political changes
and hostilities between their two nations. I call this ingenious and pragmatic initiative
‘people to people diplomacy in a pastoral system’.

Keywords:

Background and study area

The two states, Sudan and South Sudan, of what used to be the Sudan until 6 June 2011
share one of the longest political borders in Africa, 1,200 km stretching from the
Central African Republic to Ethiopia. The Bahr Alarab river, a tributary of the White
Nile in what used to be the Sudan, constitutes, in part (750 km), a natural boundary
between the newly separated states. The area around the border harbours almost all
major productive petroleum wells, in addition to millions of cattle. Moreover, the
border area also enjoys the availability of surface water (the river) and green pasture
throughout the year.

The border area is inhabited by approximately eight million people. These include,
among others, the Nilotic tribes (including Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk) to the south
of the river and the Baggara Arab nomads (including those of South Darfur (Rizaighat)
and South West Kordofan (Messeriya) on the northern boundary of the river. These communities
are cattle owners who practice transhumance seasonally along and around the river
system for centuries.

The two pastoral communities under consideration are the Dinka Malual of Northern
Bahr Elghazal, in South Sudan, and the Messeriya Arabs of South Western Kordofan,
Sudan. The two shared the grazing and water resources along the Bahr Alarab river,
which acted as a natural border between them for centuries. The boundary delimited
by tribunal is without prejudice to grazing rights. The shared grazing system formula
works as follows: Dinka Malual move north to the upper reaches of the Bahr Alarab
river into the less swampy dry clay areas during the rainy season from June to October
(Cunnison 1966). The Messeriya cattle owners retreat far north of the river system into the sandy
areas of Kordofan, avoiding the tsetse fly and other hostile environmental conditions
like the muddy clay and flooded and swampy plains during the heavy rains, which their
cattle are not accustomed to (Pantuliano et al. 2009). During the dry season, it is the reverse where the Malual retreat deeper into the
southern Bahr Elghazal province in what is now South Sudan, leaving ample space for
the Messeriya cattle owners who migrate back south from the north to graze the evacuated
Malual areas (see Figures 1 and 2). The Malual Dinka move deeper south to more greener and rich pastures, as the youths
who were rearing the stock re-join their families who were left behind in their traditional
quarters, as part of their labour division between agriculture and animal husbandry.

Customary laws and joint tribal courts between these different tribes have existed
for more than 200 years to cater for cases pertaining to trespassing over farming
lands, theft and abductions which take place from time to time. The settlement of
all disputes was arranged and implemented through annual tribal conferences, chaired
by tribal chiefs from both sides. The conferences are facilitated by the two governments'
administrators along the border since February 2011 when Governor Malong of North
Bahr Elghazal Province in South Sudan personally presided over the last conference
in Aweil town on 19 March 2011 between the Malual on one side and Messeriya on the
other. Almost all current frontline administrators governing the localities along
the river from both sides were selected either from retired or active service military
personnel. The tribal chiefs, considerably incapacitated, are obviously in the backseat
at the moment.

This river system which used to be an administrative boundary between these communities
since Sudan's independence in 1956 has changed into an international border after
6 June 2011. The post-separation political changes have dramatically affected the
peaceful co-existence between these neighbouring pastoralist communities. Both governments,
acting in mutual mistrust, have entrusted the border administration to semi-military
officials instead of the traditional native administration systems which used to resolve
cross-border problems through customary practices and laws (Tubiana et al. 2012).

This report presents a special case of how the conventional wisdom of two neighbouring
pastoral communities has bypassed government politics and squabbling and put building
blocks to a lasting peace between themselves, peace that many African states sharing
a border have failed to accomplish.

Responses to the political and constitutional changes of June 2011

By 6 June 2011, what used to be a 750 km administrative border between the two neighbouring
communities has turned into an international political border - a reality which has
proven hard to absorb by the pastoralists across both sides of the divide. On one
hand, both governments, due to the mutual hostility and mistrust, wanted all types
of relationships and activities to come to a halt. On the other hand, patterns of
livelihood across the river could not be expected to change overnight as a consequence
of the emerging new political realities.

Understandably, the pastoral communities on both sides of the new border were not
ready to tolerate the impact of the political manoeuvring while watching the pattern
of their seasonal life cycle and grazing formula slowly deteriorate under the interplay
of diverse climatic, environmental, ecological and political factors.

As a result, they decided to act beyond the given administrative and political parameters
through what I would call ‘People to People diplomacy’. Pastoral leaders, civil society
organizations, youth and women all took the lead and suggested holding ‘Grassroots
Peace conferences’, whether the two governments of Sudan and South Sudan agreed or
not. Accordingly, brainstorming meetings took place on both sides of the border in
mid-February 2012, among the grassroots people and organizations, where many ideas
of sustaining the peaceful co-existence were articulated. I had the privilege of facilitating
the Messeriya preparatory conference which took place in Almairam town of South Kordofan,
during the period 14 and 15 February 2012, and of drafting the ‘position paper’, which
summarized the relevant issues to be discussed with their neighbours, the Dinka Malual.
On the South Sudan side, Mr. Achuil, my counterpart, facilitated the Malual Dinka
preparatory conference a week earlier in the same month. The joint conference took
place in Aweil town on 19 February 2012.

The main recommendations of the Messeriya conference were as follows:

• The historical relationship with Dinka Malual should be maintained, regardless of
the government in power. Moreover, it should be formalized by grazing and trade agreements
and protocols, given the new political set-up.

• Bearing in mind the deteriorating ecological, environmental and climatic conditions,
focus should be on reducing herd numbers and improving quality of cattle. New patterns
of sedentary and semi-sedentary models of livestock production should also be encouraged
to enable more economically productive and marketable stock, which suits the changing
ecology and semi-sedentary life pattern.

• Requests should be made to both governments to relieve the border from any military
tensions to allow normal and relaxed community interaction, as both communities can
better deal with each other without government intervention.

• Previous agreements of common court laws, traditional administration and customary
practices in organizing grazing and access to water and mutual border trade should
be revived and promulgated.

• A ‘Grassroots Peace Conference’ between the two communities should be convened and
be presided over by the pastoralists themselves, but civil society organizations,
government officials, UN and NGOs are welcome to play a facilitating role.

The Dinka Malual preparatory conference which was facilitated by my counterpart, Mr.
Achuil as facilitator, took place in Aweil, the capital of Northern Bahr Elghazal
in South Sudan, four days earlier on 10 February 2012. Similar recommendations were
made, including the urgent need for a joint grassroots conference.

Thereafter, the joint grassroots conference took place, under intense and hostile
conditions between the two states, in Aweil town from 19 to 21 February 2012. At the
end of the conference, a joint communiqué was issued and included the statement, ‘We the conferees deplore war and we are committed
to end the instability and destruction to our resources resulting in unjustified impediment
of development’ (see Additional file 1).

Sustainability of ‘people to people’ peace

As is expected, there are many factors militating against the sustainability of such
a people to people peace initiative. Support mechanisms that can contribute to its
sustainability could be as follows.

Tribal elites

The importance of their role cannot be overemphasized. As an example, there was close
coordination by Mr. Achuil and myself as facilitators to our respective tribes on
both sides. Together, we advocated (through position papers) the common goals and
objectives of the preparatory and joint conferences for each community, trying our
best to bring consensus to the table.

Civil society organizations and the media

Pastoralists are almost voiceless at the national level. Their problems are mostly
not well perceived by their fellow urban decision makers. Civil society organizations
and the media, in addition to parliamentarians from these areas, can form effective
platforms to lobby for the voiceless and for such community agreements to be part
of the national peace plans.

Employment of ex-combatants on both sides

Following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan, signed in 2005, thousands of
ex-combatants on both sides were not absorbed by the disarmament, demobilization and
re-integration arrangements that followed (2011). After a while, they took up arms and became a constant danger to peace, through
acts of banditry. They sometimes succeeded in drawing the two communities into wider
tribal and sometimes even state conflicts. Providing alternative employment opportunities
for the disgruntled ex-combatants is an important way to safeguarding and sustaining
peace.

Revitalization of the ‘Peace markets’

Peace markets are market spots established in optimum locations all along the Bahr
Alarab river system. For years they represented an ingenious cross-border trade and
commodity exchange model of how neighbouring pastoral communities can protect their
interests by circumventing their government's security pressures and surveillance,
even during the intensity of war (Behnke 2012).

These markets have developed their own joint access protocols, which were agreed and
strictly observed by all pastoralists. The joint tribal administration's courts ensure
disarming of all those who attended market days. The protocols also set the rules
and regulations through which all beneficiaries should observe and respect each other's
religious and tribal codes of conduct. Peace markets, therefore, provide an outstanding
example of how the facts of geography remain superior and more sustainable than those
of geopolitics, and accordingly should be revitalized.

Implementation and monitoring of access to grazing and other resources has always
been observed and enforced by the tribal administration on both sides. This traditional
control mechanism which had effectively been exercised for years is no longer effective.
The government, in what is now Sudan, had for political reasons deliberately undermined
and incapacitated the role and powers of the traditional administration for more than
two decades. But, given the track record of tribal administrations in reducing conflict,
there should be a room to revive such committees to ensure effective and smooth implementation
of the people to people peace protocols.

Conclusion

Pastoralists across the divide of race, colour, faith and political affiliation behave
in an astonishingly rational and pragmatic manner when faced with the hard facts of
sharing diminishing resources. Moreover, if left to manage their own resources without
external pressure from their respective governments, they are always capable of applying
the appropriate formula in terms of natural control mechanisms, which are derived
from their own internal practices and social dynamics. However, this requires strong
support from both national governments and the international community.

Competing interest

The author declares that he has no competing interests, but reference should be made
to his background information provided below.

Authors’ information

AJA is a former UN international staff member who served in several war-torn duty
stations like East Timor, Sri Lanka and Iraq as Deputy Resident Representative from
2000 to 2011. Before that, he served as Commissioner of South Kordofan from 1987 to
1989 and Acting Governor of Greater Kordofan from 1985 to 1986 during the last democratic
regime. He established the first-ever unit of Pastoral-Nomadic Affairs in Sudan in
1974. His orientation and focus on pastoral affairs stem from his background as a
native of a nomadic family from Messeriya of Western Kordofan.

References

Behnke, R. 2012. The economics of pastoral livestock production and its contribution to the wider economy
of Sudan. Feinstein International Center; UNEP.

Report of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague. 2009. The Abyei Arbitration: Proceedings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration between the
Government of Sudan and The Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. The Peace Palace:
The Hague July 22nd 2009. Court report.